There's also a difference between silencing the opposing view and choosing not to endorse or help propagate it.

Dude doesn't have a right to a soapbox.

Exactly. He shouldn't be silenced. But a publisher is under no obligation to work with him. Nor are conferences obligated to invite him to speak. Nor television shows obligated to bring him on as a guest. If I find someone's views abhorrent, I'm not going to hand them a megaphone.

There's also a difference between silencing the opposing view and choosing not to endorse or help propagate it.

Dude doesn't have a right to a soapbox.

Exactly. He shouldn't be silenced. But a publisher is under no obligation to work with him. Nor are conferences obligated to invite him to speak. Nor television shows obligated to bring him on as a guest. If I find someone's views abhorrent, I'm not going to hand them a megaphone.

You should though. Bring them on and refute. Jeremy Scahill cancelled his scheduled appearance on Real Time last week. Rather than standing up and arguing his case in opposition of Milo, he pussed out and didn't show as a form of "protest". If you're really against someone's words and are so convinced yours are correct, go toe to toe with them. Silence perpetuates problems. The real issue with Milo is he's in the middle of the road. CNN and MSNBC want nothing to do with him because he'll say stuff on air that that the networks and their followers will likely agree with, and god forbid anyone actually shares common ground with the opposing side. This all or nothing crap that media has become is worse than anything coming out of the presidency.

Well this weekend's interview was hardly about refuting. It actually seemed like the two of them got along. Without knowing much of anything about Milo, I'd say he is far from a typical conservative and actually seemed to have some views that were middle of the road (the discussion was not broad so just limited to what they talked about). Both guys made great points about being too PC and Maher calling him a "British fag" would probably lead anyone else to be in hot water. However, the context made it fitting IMO, but surprised no one is pitchforking outside Mr. Maher's house.

He's a gay, jewish republican that has a black boyfriend that fucks him in the ass who's a fan of Bill Maher. How's that not middle of the road when looking at average makeup of the GOP and Democrats?

Who he is doesn't make him middle of the road. Dude is (from what I've seen) is very anti Trans, saying that tons of them are sexual predators. Is anti-gay rights and said gays should get back in the closet. Also thinks the best way to promote free speech is to insult, ridicule and verbally harm others. Maybe it's the fact that I am a very big LGBT ally, but I can't just brush that aside.

Is free speech good? Hell yea. Is what he doing middle of the road? No.

Also, I don't take him too seriously since as I said, he's a cartoon character. He tried to pull an Anne Coulter and screwed it up.

There's also a difference between silencing the opposing view and choosing not to endorse or help propagate it.

Dude doesn't have a right to a soapbox.

Exactly. He shouldn't be silenced. But a publisher is under no obligation to work with him. Nor are conferences obligated to invite him to speak. Nor television shows obligated to bring him on as a guest. If I find someone's views abhorrent, I'm not going to hand them a megaphone.

You should though. Bring them on and refute. Jeremy Scahill cancelled his scheduled appearance on Real Time last week. Rather than standing up and arguing his case in opposition of Milo, he pussed out and didn't show as a form of "protest". If you're really against someone's words and are so convinced yours are correct, go toe to toe with them. Silence perpetuates problems. The real issue with Milo is he's in the middle of the road. CNN and MSNBC want nothing to do with him because he'll say stuff on air that that the networks and their followers will likely agree with, and god forbid anyone actually shares common ground with the opposing side. This all or nothing crap that media has become is worse than anything coming out of the presidency.

This, this, holy crap this. I am in a discussion on another board with a good friend of mine who takes the position that if you knowingly propagate something you are effectively promoting it, and implicitly endorsing it. I adamantly disagree with that point. How do you have unbiased, reasoned political discourse if you're only willing to put out views that share yours? What's that quote? "Show me a room where everyone is in full agreement, and I'll show you a room where no one is thinking"? If that's not a quote, I claim it, because I just wrote it. Put it out there and knock it the fuck down if you disagree with it. But anything else is censorship, and I firmly believe that people that call for this stuff to be censored are bullies.

jsbru continually calls the current administration "fascist", but despite unprecedented levels of dissent and protest, they haven't shut ANYONE down. Yeah, this guy is controversial, yeah, he's an opportunist, but like Hitchens used to do (or rather, try to do), debate him, and make him look silly if his position is so wrong. I too am of the opinion that if your argument is strong enough, it will withstand a Milo now and again.

And debate and refute only works with reasonable people. Not a person whose only goal is to piss people off.

But you're not trying to convince HIM. The only reason you silence him is in the mistaken belief that someone ELSE won't be galvanized to action. By debating him, and proving him wrong, you at least get a chance to stop the galvanization process, or perhaps convert someone else to your side.

How do you have unbiased, reasoned political discourse if you're only willing to put out views that share yours?

Did you watch the interview? Bill said this exact same thing and his answer to his own question was "I'd be interviewing myself" (or similar wording). It's true. Got to have the discussion with the people who disagree with you if you ever want to understand.

He's a gay, jewish republican that has a black boyfriend that fucks him in the ass who's a fan of Bill Maher. How's that not middle of the road when looking at average makeup of the GOP and Democrats?

Who he is doesn't make him middle of the road. Dude is (from what I've seen) is very anti Trans, saying that tons of them are sexual predators. Is anti-gay rights and said gays should get back in the closet. Also thinks the best way to promote free speech is to insult, ridicule and verbally harm others. Maybe it's the fact that I am a very big LGBT ally, but I can't just brush that aside.

Is free speech good? Hell yea. Is what he doing middle of the road? No.

Also, I don't take him too seriously since as I said, he's a cartoon character. He tried to pull an Anne Coulter and screwed it up.

So, Adami, honest, legit question: please talk to me a little about how he's not to be forgiven for what he says, but is a cartoon character? Aren't they sort of mutually exclusive? I mean, I don't think it's all that cut and dry, frankly - some of his views - the ones that don't fit neatly into a Twitter quote - are provocative. I think the "back in the closet" is taken out of context a little bit (I think the point was to remove the sensationalism from the sexuality. In other words, you can't base your identity on your sexuality then accuse others of reacting to that identity; not an entirely unreasonable point) and I think the "aberrant" is also meant to make a deeper point (about the role of genetics and biology in our sexuality). Now I get the argument that his other stuff - about choice and what not - removes some of his credibility, but where do you draw the line, and more importantly, how do we decide what topics are unilaterally not for discussion?

Listen, I don't think he should be shut down because he's alt-right, or hyper conservative, or gay, or a douche or a cartoon character.

It's because he's British. I firmly believe that British people should silenced at all costs.

Seriously though.

I said he was a cartoon character facading as a real person. And forgive him for what? He didn't do anything. I'm not mad at the dude. There's nothing to forgive.

I also never said to silence him or that subjects are unfit for discussion. I said the dude has no right to a soapbox. He has no right to get a book published and he has no right to be hosted by TV radio or newspaper people or anyone else. Those are privileges, not rights.

I also said a debate with him is likely pointless if your goal is to debate and refute since his goal is to instigate and piss people off. It has NOTHING to do with the topics or subjects. There are probably tons of people with his point of view, ones that are not cartoon characters, that would be great to debate. He, personally, is just not one of them.

Milo will debate, and do it fairly. Most people choose not to do so with him, for various reasons.

I have no idea what you're watching. I'm not saying he won't let other people talk (though he often tries) but I have seen nothing that says he wants to debate. He was presenting complete nonsense as proven fact and didn't allow for it to be questioned. That's not debating.

The irony is that most would still have no clue who this guy even is if those people in CA hadn't decided to protest and riot because of his scheduled appearance. By protesting him, they gave him a much more vocal voice. Way to go.

I've actually watched a Milo talk before. Not live - I had no interest in being there - but I did watch the YouTube video. Again, this guy is not a political voice. He spent the first 30 straight minutes making fun of liberals. Not once mentioning why they're wrong, or even what he believes. Just straight up mocking liberals with the most extreme strawmen examples. Yeah, posting a picture of an overweight woman wearing a shirt that says, "Don't grab my pussy" and then responding, "WE WON'T HAHAHA" is really a great political discussion.

This right here is frankly one of the more mundane topics Milo could be taken to task for. I do think he misspoke and was actually mostly talking about himself. I also think the guy is a troll for so many of the other things he's said and done.

The one thing he said that was correct was that liberals take the bait every time, and that is in regards to saying anything they disagree with or anything they find the least bit offensive. They simply cannot help themselves but to get offended or outraged any time either happens. Obviously, this does not apply to all liberals, for anyone saying I am saying they are all like that, but a lot of them are. I see it all the time.

The one thing he said that was correct was that liberals take the bait every time, and that is in regards to saying anything they disagree with or anything they find the least bit offensive. They simply cannot help themselves but to get offended or outraged any time either happens. Obviously, this does not apply to all liberals, for anyone saying I am saying they are all like that, but a lot of them are. I see it all the time.

Eh, conservatives do the same thing. It's just different topics and different means of expressing the offense.

The one thing he said that was correct was that liberals take the bait every time, and that is in regards to saying anything they disagree with or anything they find the least bit offensive. They simply cannot help themselves but to get offended or outraged any time either happens. Obviously, this does not apply to all liberals, for anyone saying I am saying they are all like that, but a lot of them are. I see it all the time.

Eh, conservatives do the same thing. It's just different topics and different means of expressing the offense.

Yea it goes both ways, but in terms of the context of the interview which was mostly about free speech and PCism, he hit the nail on the head about taking the bait in terms of when someone says something that isn't PC. Which also makes sense considering Bill Maher called him a "British Fag" and no one went up in arms on that, probably as my family concluded because Bill Maher is a liberal show, had someone on Fox News said that, even in the context of the conversation, people would be rioting.

The one thing he said that was correct was that liberals take the bait every time, and that is in regards to saying anything they disagree with or anything they find the least bit offensive. They simply cannot help themselves but to get offended or outraged any time either happens. Obviously, this does not apply to all liberals, for anyone saying I am saying they are all like that, but a lot of them are. I see it all the time.

Eh, conservatives do the same thing. It's just different topics and different means of expressing the offense.

I do think the responses are different though. I may get up in arms when a liberal hippy (I'm kidding) spouts some nonsense, but I'm not out calling for BOYCOTTS, and libeling/slandering people with the toxic RACIST tag. I feel like there's an "anything goes" mentality with more liberals than conservatives. What liberals want to call "promoting racism", I call "real tolerance". Yes, there are conservatives that overreact, but they're easily classified as lunatics. Even "normal" liberals seem more than fine to ruin someone's life because they have different ideas about what constitutes "racism" or "bigotry". Hell, I worry a lot that even some of the conversations here will result in someone playing that card with me (it's happened before; a guy on the Genesis forum I used to visit passed a sort of petition to get me perma-banned, his argument being that the band wouldn't want a "known racist" posting on their forum. Thankfully he got nowhere.)

The one thing he said that was correct was that liberals take the bait every time, and that is in regards to saying anything they disagree with or anything they find the least bit offensive. They simply cannot help themselves but to get offended or outraged any time either happens. Obviously, this does not apply to all liberals, for anyone saying I am saying they are all like that, but a lot of them are. I see it all the time.

Eh, conservatives do the same thing. It's just different topics and different means of expressing the offense.

I do think the responses are different though. I may get up in arms when a liberal hippy (I'm kidding) spouts some nonsense, but I'm not out calling for BOYCOTTS, and libeling/slandering people with the toxic RACIST tag. I feel like there's an "anything goes" mentality with more liberals than conservatives. What liberals want to call "promoting racism", I call "real tolerance". Yes, there are conservatives that overreact, but they're easily classified as lunatics. Even "normal" liberals seem more than fine to ruin someone's life because they have different ideas about what constitutes "racism" or "bigotry". Hell, I worry a lot that even some of the conversations here will result in someone playing that card with me (it's happened before; a guy on the Genesis forum I used to visit passed a sort of petition to get me perma-banned, his argument being that the band wouldn't want a "known racist" posting on their forum. Thankfully he got nowhere.)

This worries me as well. The apparent ease of many liberals to label people as Nazi's or Fascists is both frightening and infuriating.

Yeah, conservatives have their own world of 'political correctness' too. Merry Christmas!! Radical Islamic terrorism! How dare you kneel during the national anthem! Voter fraud!

Okay, that's fair. But show me where they are calling for people to lose their professions because they don't have a Christmas tree? Or where there are Twitter bullies calling out people for their failure to stand?

Some liberals can be bullies when it comes to their beliefs in ways that a significant majority of conservatives are not. It's not enough to have your beliefs, you have to MAKE others believe them too. We've left "tolerance" in the dust long ago, and it's now "ACCEPTANCE" that is a requirement.

"Tolerance" is "I'll sell to homosexuals in my store. I'll agree that they can marry. But I still feel it's a choice they make, and they're genetic mutants for wanting to have sex that way." Do you honestly think that would be an acceptable point of view in the climate today? You don't think SOMEONE would respond that that person is a homophobe?

"Tolerance" is "I'll sell to homosexuals in my store. I'll agree that they can marry. But I still feel it's a choice they make, and they're genetic mutants for wanting to have sex that way." Do you honestly think that would be an acceptable point of view in the climate today? You don't think SOMEONE would respond that that person is a homophobe?

Yeah, conservatives have their own world of 'political correctness' too. Merry Christmas!! Radical Islamic terrorism! How dare you kneel during the national anthem! Voter fraud!

Okay, that's fair. But show me where they are calling for people to lose their professions because they don't have a Christmas tree? Or where there are Twitter bullies calling out people for their failure to stand?

"Tolerance" is "I'll sell to homosexuals in my store. I'll agree that they can marry. But I still feel it's a choice they make, and they're genetic mutants for wanting to have sex that way." Do you honestly think that would be an acceptable point of view in the climate today? You don't think SOMEONE would respond that that person is a homophobe?

That person would be the definition of a homophobe, yes.

Boom, point made. Why? They don't treat them any differently. You don't "choose" the person - not the gender, the PERSON - you sleep with? You've basically just said that even acknowledging that homosexuality is genetic may still be ground for being a "homophobe". What more could you possibly want??

"Tolerance" is "I'll sell to homosexuals in my store. I'll agree that they can marry. But I still feel it's a choice they make, and they're genetic mutants for wanting to have sex that way." Do you honestly think that would be an acceptable point of view in the climate today? You don't think SOMEONE would respond that that person is a homophobe?

That person would be the definition of a homophobe, yes.

Boom, point made. Why? They don't treat them any differently. You don't "choose" the person - not the gender, the PERSON - you sleep with? You've basically just said that even acknowledging that homosexuality is genetic may still be ground for being a "homophobe". What more could you possibly want??

Yeah, conservatives have their own world of 'political correctness' too. Merry Christmas!! Radical Islamic terrorism! How dare you kneel during the national anthem! Voter fraud!

Okay, that's fair. But show me where they are calling for people to lose their professions because they don't have a Christmas tree? Or where there are Twitter bullies calling out people for their failure to stand?

There's plenty of conservative outrage online over these things.

I didn't say there wasn't "outrage". "Outrage" is fine; it's when any and all consequences are deemed fine in order to make your political point. I don't see anyone trying to ruin Bruce Springsteen's career over his overt political leanings. I don't see anyone "boycotting" Katy Perry over her political leanings. But some are calling for a Taylor Swift boycott. Why? Does she hate gays? Nope. Hate Muslims? Nope. She just didn't come out AGAINST Trump hard enough. https://nymag.com/thecut/2017/02/lena-dunham-defends-taylor-swifts-lack-of-political-talk.html I'm no Lena Dunham fan, but like a broken clock, she's right twice a day, and here she's right.

"Tolerance" is "I'll sell to homosexuals in my store. I'll agree that they can marry. But I still feel it's a choice they make, and they're genetic mutants for wanting to have sex that way." Do you honestly think that would be an acceptable point of view in the climate today? You don't think SOMEONE would respond that that person is a homophobe?

That person would be the definition of a homophobe, yes.

Boom, point made. Why? They don't treat them any differently. You don't "choose" the person - not the gender, the PERSON - you sleep with? You've basically just said that even acknowledging that homosexuality is genetic may still be ground for being a "homophobe". What more could you possibly want??

I don't "want" anything, it was your cartoonish example.

What's cartoonish about it? There are people that feel that way. In a sense, that's me. I believe that we are born at a certain point on the sexual continuum. Some of us are solely heterosexual, others are solely homosexual, some are at a transition point on that continuum. I have no bias against a person for being homosexual, and would never treat them any different than if that person were straight. I believe all people have the choice about WHO they sleep with. Meaning, I'm in a committed relationship. It is MY CHOICE if I sleep with someone outside that relationship. At the end of my first marriage, the last say, two or three years were sexless. I was not having congress with my wife. I did not have sex with anyone outside of my marriage and that was MY CHOICE. I don't feel I have a right to "have sex". If I cheated on my wife, I wouldn't get to say "well, I was BORN this way, and it's NATURAL." No, I can control my urges.

I feel pedophiles are born as such as well. But I'm comfortable with having that be illegal because I feel we can be held accountable for our urges. The pedophile doesn't get to argue that he/she was "born that way" or that his urges are "natural".

I mention the "pedophile" not to compare it to homosexuality - there are profound differences, not least of which is "consent" - but to note that I am fascinated by the nature/nuture debate, and I feel like if we were asking more fundamental questions about heterosexuality/homosexuality, we might glean insight into other human conditions that potentially cause irreparable harm.

I'll say using the word "mutant" is what, to me, made that example come off as homophobic. It shows tolerance by continuing to do business and not disrupt the homosexuals life, but if internally you are thinking homosexuals are mutants, than I can't help but feel that is homophobic.

I'm sort of playing with you guys, but if one has a genetic mutation - and we all do to some degree or another - they are "mutants". I didn't intend that depth of argument with the original example, but it still shows you're not reading the underlying premise, or my feelings about the people whose identity we're discussing, you're just worried about word choice.